BEASON / ETHOS AND ERROR
Larry Beason
Ethos and Error: How Business People
React to Errors
Errors seem to bother nonacademic readers as well as teachers. But what does it mean
to be “bothered” by errors? Questions such as this help transform the study of error
from mere textual issues to larger rhetorical matters of constructing meaning. Although
this study of fourteen business people indicates a range of reactions to errors, the findings also reveal patterns of qualitative agreement—certain ways in which these readers
constructed a negative ethos of the writer.
A
dhering to conventions for mechanics and usage is just one part of writing, yet this sub-skill has long been the subject of debate—especially since the
1970s when researchers and teachers such as Mina Shaughnessy challenged
the significance of error-free writing. In 1975, Isabella Halstead suggested errors should be important only in the sense that they can impede the communication of ideas (86). Not all teachers share Halstead’s perspective, but this
position certainly appeals to many researchers and teachers alike. Years after
Halstead’s suggestion, Susan Wall and Glynda Hull asked fifty-four English
teachers to name what they believed to be the most serious errors and to explain why they were serious. Nearly three-quarters of the responses indicated
CCC 53:1 / SEPTEMBER 2001
33
Copyright © 2001 by the National Council of Teachers of English. All rights reserved.
CCC 53:1 / SEPTEMBER 2001
the errors were serious “because they got in the way of effective communication of meaning” (277), a justification consistent with Halstead’s position.
Perhaps this is the way it should be, with errors being relatively low-level
concerns unless they impede understanding of a text. But do nonacademic
readers respond in this fashion? We
I do not believe students can understand error teach writing for many reasons, but if
unless they and teachers alike better comprehend one goal is to prepare students to write
error in terms of its impact—not just textual effectively once they leave college, we
conventions defining errors, not just categories or should consider nonacademics’ rerankings of errors, but the ways in which errors sponses to error. Our effectiveness, permanage to bother nonacademic readers. haps our ethos, can be impeded if we
stress matters that other professionals
see as trivial—or if we trivialize points they deem consequential. This is not to
say that teachers must always mirror other people’s responses to error, but we
at the very least need to know if the messages we send students will be reinforced or negated by how other professionals read errors.
Put another way, I do not believe students can understand error unless
they and teachers alike better comprehend error in terms of its impact—not
just textual conventions defining errors, not just categories or rankings of errors, but the ways in which errors manage to bother nonacademic readers. We
must understand the experiences of readers as they encounter error, for errors
are created in the mind as much as in the text. To assist in this understanding,
this study attempts to define major variables associated with negative reactions to errors appearing in business writing.
Researchers have examined how business professionals react to errors,
but mostly in terms of how serious or benign errors seem to be. In one of the
most comprehensive studies, Donald Leonard and Jeanette Gilsdorf investigated how 133 vice presidents in business and 200 members of the Association
for Business Communication ranked forty-five types of errors. The survey
shows, on the one hand, that the severity of an error is shaped by the reader’s
context; for instance, executives were not as bothered by errors as were academics. On the other hand, the rankings indicate much agreement among readers in diverse situations about the relative seriousness of certain errors, a finding
supported by Maxine Hairston’s survey almost a decade earlier.
Such large-scale surveys show that errors are often bothersome in the
workforce, but we do not fully understand why they are disturbing. If Halstead’s
stance were to be extended beyond classroom situations, nonacademics would
perceive errors as problematic only when they are obstacles to communication
34
BEASON / ETHOS AND ERROR
of meaning. This position, although reasonable in some educational contexts,
does not take into account the judgments that people—rightly or wrongly—
make about writers who create errors. Indeed, even Wall and Hull’s aforementioned study found that 11 percent of the teachers’ reactions to errors focused
not on the readability of the text, but on the teachers’ belief that errors indicated a shortcoming with the writer’s education (277). Such a concern is understandable when education is a daily concern, but what might account for
nonacademics’ reactions, such as how business people see errors as evidence
of the writer’s ethos? I believe most teachers and students would acknowledge
that errors can both interfere with comprehension and harm a writer’s credibility, but if our students go on to write for various business communities, we
need a better understanding of these
problems as they are manifested in these Errors must be defined not just as textual
features breaking handbook rules but as mental
contexts.
In particular, we need to understand events taking place outside the immediate text.
more completely how a reaction to error
is, as Joseph Williams has indicated, a matter of interpretation that can vary
greatly from reader to reader. If there is substantial agreement among professionals’ interpretations, we might know which errors to focus on and why these
should be avoided. If interpretations vary widely, there might be little we can
do to prepare students—except tell them that each reader has his or her own
pet peeves. The present study reveals neither complete accord nor complete
chaos in how readers react. Despite a disconcerting amount of disagreement,
patterns of agreement can be seen, but only if teachers and students alike keep
in mind that errors involve more than perceived flaws in a text. Errors must be
defined not just as textual features breaking handbook rules but as mental
events taking place outside the immediate text. Defining error as simply a textual matter fails to forefront the “outside” consequences of error, especially the
ways in which readers use errors to make judgments about more than the text
itself. By considering these types of interpretation, we can in fact locate areas
of agreement about which students should be aware if they are to write effectively.
To study this interpretative process at the level of the individual reader
and to explore the variety of elements constituting a person’s reaction to error,
I examined how fourteen business people responded to errors. That is, I focused on a few individuals so that I might investigate a highly individualistic
process. But I found that readers’ interpretations of error were not so idiosyncratic that there were no similarities at all. Despite frequent variation in some
35
CCC 53:1 / SEPTEMBER 2001
regards, this study revealed recurring elements of interpretation among these
readers. Certain types of reactions were common even though these might not
occur with the same error or to the same degree. After discussing quantitative
results in both aggregate and individual forms, I offer a synthesis of these individual reactions to indicate that, while there are no quantitative formulas for
anticipating a reaction to error, there seem to be principal qualities that account for people’s negative reactions to errors in business discourse.
Subjects
This research is based on fourteen subjects—an arbitrary number, but one
that proved manageable yet large enough to allow me to consider individuals
in various businesses. Although part of my research involves a questionnaire, I
should emphasize that overall this study is intended to generate variables associated with error response—not to quantify comprehensively the reactions
of a population. This study, in other words, does not involve an extensive number of subjects; instead the focus is on a few people whose individual reactions
I examined in some depth.
I did not use stratified sampling, despite my first impulse to select subjects with varying ethnic backgrounds. Such sampling would be appropriate
for a larger survey, but, given the sample size, I wanted to avoid generating
data that might be misconstrued as indicating that certain ethnic groups respond one way, others another way. Determining such correlations would call
for a different study with a sample large enough to represent diverse ethnic
groups. Subjects for this study come from one ethnic group, white Americans
from two regions of the US. Halfway through this study, I accepted a teaching
position across the country. Consequentially, seven subjects are from Spokane,
Washington, and seven are from Mobile, Alabama (each subject lived most or
all of his or her life in these respective locales). As noted later, geographic distribution had little effect on the results despite notable dialect differences between speakers from these two regions. Nonetheless, I believe all results should
be interpreted keeping in mind the demographic constraints as well as the
need to determine what role—if any—ethnicity, locale, and other individual
characteristics play in people’s reactions to error.
Using purposive sampling (Merriam 48–49), I selected fourteen subjects
who engaged in both daily reading of business documents and frequent (daily
or almost daily) writing in connection with their organization. I asked colleagues and acquaintances to suggest possible subjects, resulting in a list of
males and females in various roles. All were in the private sector, and I stayed
36
BEASON / ETHOS AND ERROR
Figure 1: Subjects
Spokane subjects
Betty:
Human Resources Partner for a regional water/power company (deals with
benefits, hiring, conflict resolution).
Daryn: Vice President of Investments and Branch Manager for a national
investment firm.
Donna: Community Relations Person and Administrative Assistant to District
Service Manager for a national banking corporation.
Eric:
Regional Manager of Corporate Communications for a national
automobile club.
John:
Computer Programmer Analyst for a local software company.
Martin: Lab Manager of Analytical Services for a gold-mining company.
Susan: Assistant Regional Manager for a regional banking corporation.
Mobile subjects
Charles: Senior Agent for an insurance company.
Dee:
Accountant for a worldwide distributor of religious music.
Jan:
Vice President and Branch Manager for a regional banking corporation.
Jean:
Assistant Administrator for Human Resources Office at a health-care
institution.
Lee:
Assistant Vice President and Branch Manager for another regional banking
corporation.
Nick:
Digital Graphics Specialist for a graphics and publishing company.
Ralph: Real Estate Broker and Manager of a real estate office.
with this realm rather than broadening the study to include organizations such
as charities, social action groups, and the government. Seven of the suggested
subjects agreed to participate, and seven others did not because they lacked
time (four individuals) or no longer wrote or read much as part of their job
(three individuals). However, these latter seven suggested colleagues who agreed
to participate and who met the criteria. Finance (banking and investment) is
represented more than any other calling, but the subjects’ duties varied sufficiently to avoid duplication. Using pseudonyms, Figure 1 describes all subjects.
Procedures
For the first phase of this study, fourteen business people completed a questionnaire to rank twenty errors. For the second phase, I individually interviewed
each subject to obtain an in-depth account of the subject’s reactions.
37
CCC 53:1 / SEPTEMBER 2001
Using the questionnaire, subjects first indicated the extent to which they
were bothered by each error, thereby gauging the error gravity of twenty preselected errors. Each error was set off with boldface so subjects could rank it
using a 1–4 scale, with 1 being the least bothersome. This format results in a
limitation often found in the related research (e.g., Greenbaum and Taylor;
Hairston; Leonard and Gilsdorf; Long). Any questionnaire that focuses respondents’ attention on gauging error gravity or on individual sentences known to
contain errors can alter readers’ natural responses. Certainly, a naturalistic
design requiring subjects to locate the errors for themselves could provide useful results, but I chose to boldface errors for two reasons. First, a pilot version
of this study indicated respondents needed to understand my focus was not
on testing their own proficiency with usage, grammar, or writing. Such apprehension and self-consciousness can produce unnatural results, as well as make
respondents less willing to engage in further discourse during follow-up interviews. Boldfacing errors helped subjects understand that my purpose was not
to test them, but to understand their viewpoint. Second, the primary goal for
using the questionnaire was to provide a tangible mechanism by which I could
explore these subjects’ reading processes. Barbara Tomlinson describes the
misleading information that writers can provide when they attempt to generalize about their writing processes instead of describing recent, specific instances (434–36). Readers, too, can face problems when researchers ask abstract
questions about how they react to texts, so I used the questionnaire to focus
the interviewees’ attention on recent encounters with specific errors. Boldfacing
the errors provided a concrete, as well as nonthreatening, means by which the
subjects and I could engage in this dialogue.
To create the questionnaire, I revised a business document to produce
five versions, with each version containing four examples of one type of error.
In case the ordering of the versions might affect responses, I varied the sequence in which subjects responded to the versions. The five types of error are
misspellings, fragments, fused sentences, unnecessary quotation marks, and
word-ending errors (see Appendix A for a sample of one complete version; see
Appendix B for a list of all errors). Given my intent of offering a more complete
definition of what it means to be bothered by errors, I did not base my choice
of errors on any one criterion, though frequency was especially important.
Rather, I wanted subjects to consider a range of error types, so these errors
reflect various combinations of frequency, gravity, and form.
Seeking to avoid the unfamiliar or bizarre, I chose four categories appearing in Connors and Lunsford’s list of the twenty most frequent errors in
38
BEASON / ETHOS AND ERROR
college students’ writing. However, these four hold various positions within
their list: misspellings (apparently the most common error at the time of
Connors and Lunsford’s study), word-ending errors (a combination of two categories Connors and Lunsford called “wrong/missing inflected endings” and
“wrong tense or verb form,” which were ranked Nos. 6 and 13), fragments
(ranked No. 12), and fused sentences (which the researchers collapsed with
run-on sentences near the bottom of the list at No. 18) (403). My fifth error—
unnecessary quotation marks—is an intentional outlier in that it did not appear even four times in Connors and Lunsford’s initial analysis of 300 papers
(as discussed later, I found this error received a distinct reaction not because it
was uncommon but because of certain implications associated with quotation marks).
Few studies have measured the relative gravity of errors made by native
speakers of English. Still, I chose errors that appear to reflect different levels of
severity. Surveys indicate nonacademics and academics deem fragments and
fused sentences to be especially bothersome (Hairston 797; Kantz and Yates;
Leonard and Gilsdorf 145; Long 6).1 Misspellings receive mixed reactions yet
often fall in a middle range. Two studies found that homophone errors, the
only misspellings the researchers examined, generally did not stand out one
way or the other (Leonard and Gilsdorf 146-47; Long 7). Two other surveys
found that certain homophone errors, such as “you’re” for “your,” were particularly bothersome; however, other misspellings, such as “recieve” for “receive,” were usually only mildly irritating (Hairston 801-06; Kantz and Yates).
Teachers in Wall and Hull’s study listed the three most serious errors found in
a sample text containing various errors, including misspellings, and only 1.4
percent of the responses referred to misspellings (276-77). Despite the time
and money spent on spell checkers, dictionaries, and spelling instruction, surveys therefore suggest that misspellings are usually only moderately bothersome, except with certain homophone errors or in job application documents
such as resumes (Monthei 39). Few handbooks give much attention to errors
involving word endings and, in particular, to unnecessary quotation marks,
indicating both are relatively innocuous.
Although an error can easily involve several aspects of language all the
way from phonology to semantics, the definition of an error usually hinges on
one particular linguistic feature. The five errors were accordingly selected to
reflect different linguistic features. Typically, misspellings are orthographic
matters concerning individual letters, while word-ending errors go a bit further by involving morphological omissions or misuses at the end of words. In
39
CCC 53:1 / SEPTEMBER 2001
contrast, fragments and fused sentences involve entire phrases and clauses—
syntactic matters of creating and combining sentences. Unnecessary quotation marks are again a special category in that they deal most directly with
punctuation, rather than words or groups of words per se.
The purpose of including a breadth of error types was not only to represent more fully the spectrum of errors that exist but also to acknowledge the
possibility that reactions to error depend on error type. Within each of the five
categories, the four examples accordingly reflect additional differences. For
example, the misspellings consist of a homophone error (“they’re”), two misspellings so glaring they could be typographical (“aboutt” and “metods”), and
one misspelling many people might easily produce or overlook (“recomendations”).
The subjects typically completed all five versions in six to eight minutes.
At this point, I interviewed each business person for some forty-five minutes
using a semi-structured format (Merriam 73–74) to elicit reactions to a few
standard questions before probing subjects’ responses. These interviews form
the core of this study and focused on each subject’s reactions to errors from
the questionnaire, though the conversation would naturally broaden at times.
All questions were primarily designed to uncover the reasons why subjects did
or did not find the sample errors bothersome. Understanding why a person
reacts one way or another is difficult if not impossible to determine absolutely.
In particular, interviewees might simply say whatever they believe they are
expected to say, so I followed normal interview practices (e.g., Kvale 124–35)
to help create a relaxed atmosphere conducive to forthright, honest communication. The tone of the interviews was so relaxed that subjects themselves
did not strictly adhere to conventions of formal English, as excerpts presented
later reveal. To avoid encouraging subjects to distress over an error more than
they would normally, I limited my probing of any particular error to two questions (generally, requests for clarification). Nonetheless, the interview results
are artifacts of a discussion and cannot be taken as absolute proof of what
goes on in readers’ minds. Dialogues with individuals about their reactions
offer one means of exploring both the possibilities and probabilities behind
the numbers, but any self-reporting has its limits.
After the interviews were transcribed, I first analyzed each transcription
for its major themes and later considered how these might be refined and synthesized. Essentially, I read each transcription for dominant themes; larger categories of responses emerged when subjects’ reactions frequently overlapped.
This approach to analyzing transcripts reflects what Kvale refers to as “mean-
40
BEASON / ETHOS AND ERROR
ing condensation” and “meaning categorization” in interview research (192;
also see Merriam 133–36).
Questionnaire results
The sample size is too small for statistical comparisons or large-scale generalizations about error gravity based on mean averages. However, it is important
to note certain levels of agreement and disagreement found in the questionnaire results, for these shed light on how a mean average can mask individual
differences within a population—differences with important ramifications for
preparing students to write in the business sector.
To illustrate this point, I wish to discuss first the overall averages. As seen
in Figure 2, fragments seem particularly bothersome among business people,
as Leonard and Gilsdorf (154), as well as Hairston (797), found. Not surprisingly, unnecessary quotation marks are least bothersome, while fused sentences
appear less bothersome than might be expected relative to misspellings and
word-ending errors. Nonetheless, all averages fall between the “somewhat bothersome” and “definitely bothersome” reactions.
An inherent problem with such averages is that, in condensing individuals’ variation into a single score to represent a population, averages are conducive to a monolithic perspective. A standard deviation can indicate variation,
but this single statistic can be difficult to appreciate. By considering individual
responses to particular errors, we can better understand the diversity with
which readers approach errors, for the raw scores make it clear that two types
of substantial variation exist: (1) among different readers’ reactions to a specific instance of error, and (2) among one reader’s reactions to errors of the
same type. Figure 3, for instance, reveals how each subject responded to misspellings. (Subjects in Figures
3-7 are arranged according to
Figure 2: Overall reactions to error types
highest to lowest averages,
3.00
with names alphabetized in Fragments:
2.70
cases of equal averages.) As Misspellings:
Word-Ending Errors:
2.59
seen within each vertical colFused Sentences:
2.48
umn, the first form of varia- Quotation Mark Errors:
2.30
tion is reflected in the range of
All Error Types:
2.61
reactions to any given error.
Every misspelling received KEY: 1
2
3
4
three of the four scores from Not bothersome Somewhat Definitely Extremely
at all
bothersome bothersome bothersome
the subjects, with the scope for
41
CCC 53:1 / SEPTEMBER 2001
the first two errors extending from 1 to 4—a range supporting the argument
that error gravity depends on who is reading a text. For example, most subjects gave the homophone error “they’re” a “definitely bothersome” ranking,
but two deemed it “not bothersome” and three “extremely bothersome.” Only
one misspelling (“they’re”) received even a simple majority in terms of the most
common score it received.
The second form of variation can be seen by focusing on each horizontal
row. In Figure 3, some readers (e.g., Dee and Donna) were fairly consistent,
almost categorical, in how they reacted. A misspelling is a misspelling, it would
seem. Other readers, such as Eric, apparently evaluated each misspelling individually. He was the most bothered by the two misspellings that appear to be
typographical mistakes (he later explained this reaction was not based on
whether the misspellings were mere slips but whether they would “sound odd”
if read aloud). In such cases, error gravity does not simply depend on who is
reading, but what they are reading.
Figure 3: Reactions to misspellings
Dee
Betty
Eric
Jan
Nick
Susan
Donna
Lee
Martin
Daryn
Jean
John
Ralph
Charles
Error average
KEY:
recomendations
they’re/their
metods
aboutt
Subject
average
4
4
2
2
2
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
3
3
3
3
4
3
3
4
3
3
3
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
4
2
2
3
2
3
2
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
4.00
3.75
3.25
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.75
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.25
2.00
1.75
1.50
1.93
2.93
3.00
2.93
2.70
1
2
Not bothersome Somewhat
at all
bothersome
3
Definitely
bothersome
42
4
Extremely
bothersome
BEASON / ETHOS AND ERROR
So can we safely say Eric and certain other readers will react to errors
based on the particular nature of each error? Indeed, Eric’s reactions to fused
sentences and unnecessary quotation marks continue to indicate that he considers each error separately rather than categorically, as seen in Figures 4 and
5. Figure 6, however, shows unusual consistency for Eric: Each word-ending
error was extremely bothersome to him. Three other subjects (Susan, Jan, and
Ralph) similarly show little variation in their scorings of word-ending errors,
despite having mixed reactions to misspellings. Such readers, then, appear to
defy generalizations—even when we generalize by claiming that these readers
themselves do not generalize and react instead to errors on a case-by-case basis. At the most, we can hedge by assuming these readers usually approach
each instance of an error on an individual basis.
To complicate matters, a few readers are much more consistent than Susan, Jan, or Ralph—a finding leading to generalizations requiring less hedging.
Figure 4: Reactions to fused sentences
Susan
Betty
Daryn
Dee
Jan
Eric
Martin
Donna
Jean
John
Lee
Charles
Nick
Ralph
Error average
Error 1
Error 2
Error 3
Error 4
Subject
average
4
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
3
3
2
3
2
2
4
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
2
1
2
2
1
1
4
4
3
4
3
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
3
4
3
2
1
3
3
1
3
2
4.00
3.50
3.25
3.25
3.00
2.50
2.25
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.75
1.75
1.50
2.64
2.21
2.14
2.93
2.48
Refer to Appendix B for the wording of each error.
KEY:
1
2
Not bothersome Somewhat
at all
bothersome
3
Definitely
bothersome
43
4
Extremely
bothersome
CCC 53:1 / SEPTEMBER 2001
In Figures 3-7, the scores for Dee and Donna, for instance, show little variation
within a given error category, although Dee does vary her reactions to fused
sentences. Safe generalizations can also be made on the basis of other subjects’ responses to one error in particular, fragments (see Figure 7). True, each
fragment received three of the four scores, but it is the only category that never
received a “not bothersome” score from anyone—an additional indication that
fragments can be the most serious of errors. Perhaps the most notable pattern
with fragments, though, is within each individual’s responses: Nine subjects
gave the same score to each fragment (usually a 2 or 3), and only one subject
gave three different scores to fragments (Jean, who continued her pattern of
varying her responses within a category). Additionally, the average scores for
three of the fragments is the same (3.07), a surprising result considering these
averages derive from fourteen individuals whose other scores exhibit consid-
Figure 5: Reactions to unnecessary quotation marks
Jan
Susan
Dee
Eric
Donna
Jean
Lee
Betty
Charles
Nick
John
Daryn
Martin
Ralph
Error average
Error 1
Error 2
Error 3
Error 4
Subject
average
3
4
4
2
3
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
4
2
3
2
3
2
2
2
2
1
1
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
4
3
2
2
3
1
2
1
2
2
1
1
1
1
3.75
3.75
3.50
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.25
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.50
1.25
1.00
1.00
2.29
2.57
2.50
1.86
2.30
Refer to Appendix B for the wording of each error.
KEY:
1
2
Not bothersome Somewhat
at all
bothersome
3
Definitely
bothersome
44
4
Extremely
bothersome
BEASON / ETHOS AND ERROR
erable variation. Fragments, then, seem especially likely to be treated in a categorical fashion.
Nonetheless, such clear patterns in the subjects’ reactions are rare. Each
subject’s average score for a category reveals yet another way to see the general
inconsistency despite an occasional tendency. Ralph and Charles are usually
among the least bothered by the errors, while Dee and—to a lesser degree—
Susan are likely to be among the most bothered. However, it is difficult to make
further generalizations about other subjects’ comparative tolerance. John, for
example, is among the most tolerant in terms of misspellings, fused sentences,
and misused quotation marks, yet he stands in the middle of the rankings for
word-ending errors and is among the most bothered by fragments. Compared
to other readers, Betty reacts in a clearly negative way to three errors, but other
reactions place her in an intermediate position with both fragments and unnecessary quotation marks.
Figure 6: Reactions to word-ending errors
Eric
Dee
Jan
Betty
Susan
Martin
John
Daryn
Donna
Lee
Nick
Jean
Ralph
Charles
Error average
Error 1
Error 2
Error 3
Error 4
Subject
average
4
4
3
3
3
3
2
3
2
3
2
1
1
1
4
4
4
3
3
3
4
2
2
1
3
3
2
1
4
4
4
4
4
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
4
3
4
3
3
4
2
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
4.00
3.75
3.75
3.25
3.25
3.00
2.75
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
1.75
1.25
1.00
2.50
2.79
2.64
2.43
2.59
Refer to Appendix B for the wording of each error.
KEY:
1
2
Not bothersome Somewhat
at all
bothersome
3
Definitely
bothersome
45
4
Extremely
bothersome
CCC 53:1 / SEPTEMBER 2001
Despite a few tendencies that require qualifying, these numbers reveal
widespread inconsistencies—from type of error to type of error, from person
to person, and even among the responses of an individual person to errors of
the same kind. These quantitative results indicate how difficult it is to predict
the way a given reader, much less a group of readers, will react to errors, but
the interviews point to agreement in other ways—qualitative agreement.
Interview results
The interviews suggest that the inconsistencies and two forms of variation
discussed above are likely created by two broad categories of variables: textual
and extra-textual features of discourse. Before discussing particulars of the
interviews, I wish to summarize this finding, which is important in its own
right but also clarifies my focus for the remainder of this article.
Figure 7: Reactions to fragments
Susan
Eric
Dee
John
Jean
Betty
Daryn
Donna
Jan
Martin
Lee
Charles
Nick
Ralph
Error average
Error 1
Error 2
Error 3
Error 4
Subject
average
4
4
3
3
2
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
3
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
3
3
2
2
2
2
4.00
3.75
3.75
3.75
3.25
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
3.00
2.50
2.00
2.00
2.00
2.79
3.07
3.07
3.07
3.00
Refer to Appendix B for the wording of each error.
KEY:
1
2
Not bothersome Somewhat
at all
bothersome
3
Definitely
bothersome
46
4
Extremely
bothersome
BEASON / ETHOS AND ERROR
First, the interviews indicate error gravity is easily mitigated or exacerbated by unique textual features that create or surround each instance of error—linguistic variables such as word choice, syntax, punctuation, or the
location of these variables within the text. Below are examples of how such
features seem to have led readers to give different evaluations to errors of the
same type:
• Lexical complexity (e.g., several subjects referred to this variable when
explaining why “aboutt” is more bothersome than “recommendations.”)
• Syntactic complexity (e.g., three subjects noted that an error within a
sophisticated sentence was especially bothersome because the sentence was difficult to understand even without the error.)
• Position within a paragraph (e.g., one subject said that a fused sentence
at the end of a paragraph was not bothersome because the meaning of
the paragraph was clear by this point in the passage.)
Second, error gravity is affected by extra-textual features that more directly go
beyond the language of a text.2 These include aspects of the communication
situation, such as whether a document is a formal letter from an executive or a
sticky-note to a colleague. Extra-textual features also include the reader’s interpretative framework—the way in which each reader encounters the text
having unique experiences and expectations that affect his or her interpretation of errors, as Williams and Lees have argued. Perhaps readers judge the
same error differently because the uniqueness of each person’s life has formed
a singular set of assumptions, memories, and preferences—some of which are
relevant to the reading of errors. Indeed, the interviews suggest that extratextual features produce even more variation than a standardized questionnaire can uncover. For example, any given pair of readers who scored the same
error as “extremely bothersome” still reacted differently in terms of what it
meant for each of them to be so bothered, a difference that the questionnaire
alone could not indicate.
Although textual aspects of error are important, it is especially crucial to
understand extra-textual features. Too many students, if not teachers, view
errors simply in terms of “breaking rules”—a failure to adhere to textbook dictums for producing a text. By considering how forces beyond the text shape
the reader’s reactions and by considering how errors in turn shape the writer’s
ethos perhaps students can better understand that writing means more than
the production of texts, more than adhering to abstract guidelines removed
47
CCC 53:1 / SEPTEMBER 2001
from the needs, biases, and intentions of readers. The remainder of this article, therefore, will elaborate on extra-textual issues. In particular, I concentrate on what the interviews illuminate the most: the ways in which readers
apparently use errors to construct the writer’s ethos within the context of the
business community.
To clarify this notion, I must first identify the most pervasive theme found
in the interviews, what I call the “meaning/image” theme. This theme is the
bottom line as to why errors bother readers: Errors create misunderstandings
of the text’s meaning, and they harm the image of the writer (and possibly the
organization to which the writer belongs). Image, as I will explain shortly, involves several extra-textual issues, but I want to stress that all subjects drew
on both ways of reacting to an error, indicating the extent to which these concepts—textual meaning and the writer’s image—are fundamental to any definition of error gravity. Each subject noted that some errors were definitely
confusing (especially the syntactic errors) or, more commonly, momentarily
interrupted the flow of reading enough to slow communication. Charles said
of one fragment: “It slows me down and confuses me; I have to go back and do
it again, and then I have to say, ‘What are they really trying to tell me?’” As
noted earlier, some readers consider these meaning-hampering errors to be
the most serious, perhaps the only ones worthy of much concern.
But the interviews indicate such errors are not the only types leading to
negative reactions. The subjects frequently accounted for even the most negative scores not by discussing their confusion
The interviews suggest . . . that the extent to as readers, but by commenting on the imwhich errors harm the writer’s image is more age the error creates of the writer. Even
serious and far-reaching than many students though the questionnaire consisted of five
and teachers might realize. versions of the same document, making it
easier for readers to interpret the meaning
of the document, concerns about the writer’s image arose so often and emphatically that it clearly seems a determinant of error gravity for these subjects.
The interviews suggest, in fact, that the extent to which errors harm the
writer’s image is more serious and far-reaching than many students and teachers might realize. At times, the subjects stated in very general terms that errors affect a person’s credibility as a writer or employee. More often, though,
the subjects noted specific image problems, which I have synthesized into three
major categories and eleven subcategories. These interrelated categories focus on extra-textual features of communication, but in varying degrees, mov-
48
BEASON / ETHOS AND ERROR
ing from the writing skills of one person, to concerns about that person beyond his or her writing skills, to global issues affecting the organization and
others. (My order of presenting the three categories reflects this movement;
within each category, though, the subcategories are discussed in an order that
merely facilitates comparisons and contrasts.)
On one level, these categories add yet more inconsistency, for readers discussing the same error often formed different images of the writer. Although I
will note a few exceptions, a particular image problem was usually not associated with just one category of error, again suggesting difficulties in predicting
responses to error. On another level, however, the following images occurred
so frequently throughout the interviews that I believe these categories reveal
consequential qualitative similarities among business people’s reactions to
error, implying similar ways of making meaning through reading errors and
through reading much more than we might suspect into these errors. Space
limitations prohibit me from exploring these images fully, but I believe the
following offers a more complete understanding of what it means for a writer’s
credibility to be jeopardized by errors.
Category 1: writer as a writer
The first major category is based on the writer’s credibility as a writer—not a
professional writer, but someone whose job includes some writing. This overall image problem arose frequently and with all errors. It contains four subcategories, the first three of which are especially interrelated.
Writer’s image as a writer
1.1 Hasty writer
1.2 Careless writer
1.3 Uncaring writer
1.4 Uninformed writer
1.1: Hasty writer
First, errors can create the image of someone who writes too hastily. This theme
was one of the most common, as each subject at some point spoke about the
errors in terms of time demands or the lack of time the writer gave the sample
document. Usually, the subject indicated the writer was hasty as a whole in
writing the document, did not take time to proofread in particular, or rushed
to meet a deadline. The subjects were often sympathetic to the time demands
49
CCC 53:1 / SEPTEMBER 2001
faced by an employee; several noted how they themselves make mistakes in
the rush to accomplish extra work in an environment of fierce competition or
stressful downsizing. Despite this compassion, most subjects reacted negatively. That is, a subject might appear both understanding (“I know how rushed
people are”) and disapproving (“These errors still bother me even though I
sympathize”). Indeed, a few subjects indicated that having to rewrite or reread
error-filled documents cost them valuable time of their own, making them
less likely to be forgiving. While subjects occasionally tempered their negative
reactions by acknowledging that errors often result from huge demands on an
employee’s time, these errors also suggested the writer lacks the ability to handle
these incessant demands on business people who must write as part of their job.
1.2: Careless writer
A closely related subcategory is the image of a careless writer, one who is inattentive or neglectful when writing. This image was also one of the most common throughout the interviews. Subjects often used the terms “careless” and
“hasty” jointly, but the former was more negative and frequent, in addition to
implying the error did not result from a lack of time. Raising his voice and
gritting his teeth, John said: “This stuff really bothers me! It’s not so much even
that you are in a hurry but that you are extremely careless to do these kinds of
sentences.” Betty discussed how she refused the services of certain student
interns whose errors indicated to her that they
At times, the subjects moved beyond the would not proofread carefully. Errors eliciting
writer’s caring about the document the “careless writer” image clearly bothered subitself; they often stated that the writer jects, for these mistakes indicated the writer has
did not care about the reader or what- the ability to avoid errors but did not focus on
ever exigency prompted the document. doing so. Indeed, subjects such as Dee frequently
used the harsher terms “lazy” and “sloppy”: “I
guess it’s lazy—all you have to do is click that button to run spell check.”
When making such comments, subjects generally did not assume the employee to be careless in all duties, just in terms of writing or writing one particular document. As will be noted shortly, other comments indicate there are
times when errors do suggest more widespread carelessness (see subcategory
2.2).
1.3: Uncaring writer
At times, the subjects moved beyond the writer’s caring about the document
itself; they often stated that the writer did not care about the reader or what-
50
BEASON / ETHOS AND ERROR
ever exigency prompted the document. The major difference between this third
subcategory and the previous two is the extent to which the reader personalized a mistake, blaming it neither on time nor a careless habit as much as on
an inappropriate attitude toward something or somebody. Though this subcategory was the least frequent within category 1, the ramifications of being
uncaring can be just as serious in business discourse as in academic writing,
perhaps more so. For example, Lee said, “If this was something important that
they wanted me to read . . . and had a lot of these little sloppy errors, then that
would probably affect the way I thought about that person and how important
that proposal was to them as well.” Charles said that any sort of error on application materials in particular could elicit this image: “What they say is that if a
person doesn’t care more about themselves than to not present themselves in
the best possible light, how in the world can you expect them to care about you
and your business?” In such ways, errors can evoke the image of a writer who is
not merely careless but detached, disrespectful, or even unmotivated.
1.4: Uninformed writer
So far, I have discussed three subcategories of image problems dealing with a
person’s writing ability, and each concentrates on errors perceived as accidents—as problems resulting not from a writer’s failure to understand certain
conventions, but from haste, carelessness, typographical mistakes, or apathy.
With this next theme, however, errors suggest an uninformed writer, one who
lacks relevant knowledge (almost always, a knowledge of conventions for formal English).3 Taking three forms, this fourth subcategory was particularly
widespread. First, some subjects assumed the writer lacks knowledge about
one error or type of error. Lee, for instance, suggested that the person who
wrote “they’re” instead of “their” is simply unaware of the difference between
the two. Other times, interviewees assumed that the writer lacks a larger understanding of usage, spelling, or punctuation. After discussing fused sentences,
Susan concluded: “Possibly, the writer just does not understand how to deal
with punctuation.” Finally, on rare occasions this image of an “unknowing
writer” referred to the knowledge of the topic of the document. Jan, for example, said that the sample errors made her question whether the writer understands the material being covered; for Jan, the errors indicated that the writer
struggled with language for something to say, as a result of not really comprehending the issue under discussion.
As a group, the subjects alluded to each source of error—accidents versus insufficient knowledge—at roughly an equal rate, but they did not clearly
51
CCC 53:1 / SEPTEMBER 2001
agree on which errors were associated with which source. As noted, I chose
the misspellings “metods” and “aboutt” because they seem to be typographical
Error gravity is not necessarily determined by mistakes, and almost all subjects gave this
explanation. However, there was no such
whether an error is perceived as an accident
pattern of agreement with other errors.
rather than a knowledge problem.
One might well wonder if readers treat
knowledge-based errors more severely since these stem from what some people
view as ignorance (indeed, some subjects phrased the problem this way). Long’s
study of academics’ reactions led him to conclude that errors of carelessness
are more tolerable (10), but while some of my subjects were lenient with what
they deemed accidents, others viewed these as more bothersome because the
writer, in these readers’ estimation, essentially decided to ignore a problem
that could have been easily fixed. Thus, error gravity is not necessarily determined by whether an error is perceived as an accident rather than a knowledge problem.
Category 2: writer as a business person
All subjects indicated errors can harm one’s image by reflecting not just writing ability but other traits, skills, or attitudes important for someone in business. This second category has five subcategories.
Writer’s image as a business person
2.1 Faulty thinker
2.2 Not a detail person
2.3 Poor oral communicator
2.4 Poorly educated person
2.5 Sarcastic, pretentious, aggressive writer
2.1: Faulty thinker
The most commonly mentioned of these five subcategories involves what could
be called a “thinking problem.” Several subjects speculated or firmly asserted
that a given error resulted from faulty thinking abilities—not a deficient knowledge of language (see subcategory 1.4), but limited reasoning skills. This image developed almost exclusively with errors connected more with syntax
(fragments and fused sentences) than with individual words or punctuation
(misspellings, quotation mark errors, word-ending errors). When explaining
possible causes of a fused sentence, Susan stated: “Well, again, I think it shows
52
BEASON / ETHOS AND ERROR
a lack of ability to understand what a complete thought is. . . . So I guess I
would be very fearful if this were in an application.” Ralph believed the sample
fragments were likely caused by “not having complete thoughts.” Readers did
not associate syntactic errors with only this one image. Daryn, in fact, associated the author of the fused sentences with four problems: “They lacked some
basic writing skills or education, and they didn’t think very logically, and they
didn’t proofread it.”
While I want to avoid “correcting” the subjects’ personal reactions, it is
highly questionable that the sample fused sentences and fragments represent
incomplete thoughts in the context of the document in which they appeared.
Possibly, the occasional use of the term “complete thought” was influenced by
teachers and traditional handbooks that define a complete sentence as a complete thought, but other language choices suggest subjects perceived, correctly
or not, a poor or incomplete reasoning process. Ralph, for example, went on to
say that the faulty sentences reminded him of someone struggling to think
through an issue: “Most of the time on a rewrite, when you go back and formulate what you are trying to say, you can always put it in a better and more
complete thought structure. But this, this was not thought out well.” Still, the
use of “complete thought” is one indication that subjects’ reactions to error
might not be accurate or fair—an observation I will return to later.
2.2: Not a detail person
Similarly, some subjects saw errors as indicative of someone who struggles
with details, but this image problem was not limited to syntactic errors. Some
subjects assumed that writers who do not notice the accidental errors discussed earlier might overlook other (and often more important) details connected with their job. This concern did not arise frequently, but interviewees
involved in banking and investment, despite their different job duties, were
especially alarmed when they perceived the writer could not handle details.
Daryn, a vice-president with a brokerage firm, said:
There is a lot of written communication that goes out to our clients, and we want
it to be as accurate as possible. It’s somewhat bothersome because if someone
makes an error in writing a word, are they going to make an error in typing a
number? In our business, we work with money, and a small error with a digit can
make a big difference to a client.
Only one other image problem (subcategory 3.2) is so clearly linked to the particular nature of certain professions. As noted earlier, finance was best represented among the subjects (four bankers and one investment broker).
53
CCC 53:1 / SEPTEMBER 2001
Additional research might be needed to determine if people in other professions are especially sensitive to particular errors.4
2.3: Poor oral communicator
This theme was associated with various errors from the questionnaire, even
though only the word-ending errors would normally be considered problems
in speech (a fact none of the subjects noted). This image problem was the least
mentioned of all found in this study, yet a few subjects were concerned that
the writer who commits errors in writing might commit many errors in speech
as well. Subjects generally did not posit a cause/effect relationship between
errors in speech and those in writing; they simply noted the patterns of error
would likely be reflected in the writer’s speech. A few subjects even assumed
the errors hint at more than just problems with usage and grammar in
speech. Betty, the human resources administrator, feared that the writer would
struggle with the important negotiation and conflict-resolution skills needed
in day-to-day discussions.
2.4: Poorly educated person
With the next image problem, subjects cast doubts on the writer’s education,
usually in terms of writing instruction but sometimes a more general doubt
about the writer’s overall education. In general, this concern was related to a
knowledge problem, primarily in terms
Subjects indicated that the educational of having learned appropriate linguistic
shortcoming seems to have involved more than forms (see subcategory 1.4). Other times,
merely a failure to acquire knowledge. though, subjects indicated that the educational shortcoming seems to have involved more than merely a failure to acquire knowledge—such as failing to
care about one’s work in school or not having been taught to proofread carefully.
Whether the “blame” was placed on the writer as a student or on the
educational system, the majority of subjects at some point connected errors
with the lack of a successful education (for no clear reason, male subjects from
Mobile were unlikely to offer or emphasize this image problem). Most subjects, possibly out of concern they might somehow offend me, indicated the
problem was with the writer’s inability to learn, not ineffectual teaching. Usually, they assumed the writer as a student failed to acquire the knowledge of
grammar and the English language that, they believed, would have prevented
many errors. A few subjects seemed to blame the educational system, espe-
54
BEASON / ETHOS AND ERROR
cially public education (again, perhaps because of the interview situation).
Martin referred to the errors in the sample document by seeming to critique
all educational levels as well as the newly graduated professional:
Those are glaring—that’s junior high. Why do so many kids get out of school without a minimum level of skills? When I got out of high school, they tested you. . . .
I fail to see how people can graduate with a four-year degree in electrical engineering with something like this.
2.5: Sarcastic, pretentious, aggressive writer
This theme might initially seem odd, for it concerns the image of the writer as
sarcastic, pretentious, or aggressive. Most subjects offered comments falling
into this subcategory but did so only with one
error: unnecessary quotation marks. Al- One error, unfortunately, can contribute
though a few subjects saw some of these as to diverse problems as well as to problems
inappropriate strategies for emphasizing associated with just that error.
words, comments such as Betty’s were common: “I rated that a 3 because I felt like there was some sarcasm in making fun
of somebody at their expense. . . . I am in judgment of the writer because the
writer is in judgment of this party they’re referring to.” Jean went further by
suggesting that the writer “is probably aggressive, probably likes to be noticed.”
Ralph stated that the image was so distracting that it hampered communication, indicating how these two issues (image and meaning) are not necessarily
disconnected: “That’s pretentious to me. What is your intent by putting unnecessary quotation marks? Why did you do that? This is just throwing up a
roadblock. It’s keeping me from reading this clearly.”
As noted, a particular image problem was rarely associated with only one
type of error. Subcategory 2.1 is an exception, and the quotation mark errors
are another. These exceptions illustrate an additional layer of complexity: An
error can contribute not only to the broader image problems noted previously
(and subsequently), but also to distinctive image problems associated primarily—or exclusively—with that error. Unnecessary quotation marks might, for
example, foster the image of a hasty reader who did not take time to ensure
judicious use of punctuation (subcategory 1.1); other mistakes might contribute to this same image. But the same readers might see these quotation marks
errors as also creating a “tailored” image problem, one fitting just this type of
error. One error, unfortunately, can contribute to diverse problems as well as
to problems associated with just that error.
55
CCC 53:1 / SEPTEMBER 2001
Category 3: writer as a representative
Up to this point in my taxonomy, the ethos problems have been principally
associated with possible causes of errors (such as carelessness or inappropriate attitudes) and have focused on images of only the writer. With the final
major category, the image problems grow out of the effects of errors on a group
of people. Just as errors reflect on the individual, the individual reflects on the
organization. This category did not appear as often as the first two, but subjects were emphatic when these concerns arose, as demonstrated by their gestures and the length at which several would elaborate (one subject even asked
me to stop recording for several minutes while he explained the embarrassment for the company because of usage errors produced by one high-placed
executive).
Certainly, all image problems falling into the other two major categories
can affect the credibility of an organization. However, subjects often did not
settle for merely implying that errors harm the company’s image; they explicitly stated that they saw the writer as a poor representative of the company.
Many times, subjects did so by making a general observation. Jan, for example,
told me, “Errors tell what your company’s like.” Just as often, subjects focused
on two specific ways in which errors evoke the image of a representative who
can be an organizational liability.
Writer’s image as organizational representative
3.1 Representing the company to customers
3.2 Representing the company in court
3.1: Representing the company to customers
First and most obviously, the writer can represent the company in ways that
harm customer relations and sales. In particular, the writer might cost the organization customers by representing it as unprofessional, ineffective, or in
terms of any of the problems falling under categories 1 and 2. For instance,
Daryn said that clients might not want to do business with a brokerage firm
whose employee sends a “sloppy” letter containing errors, and Jan went beyond her general comment noted above:
The banking industry is more or less thought of as being a perfect industry. . . .
And we try to do everything right, and I guess it bothers me if we present something on a piece of paper that is not . . . as near perfect as it can be. If I’m going to
write you a letter, then my image went out in that letter, or my company’s image.
56
BEASON / ETHOS AND ERROR
My bank’s image needs to be as nearly perfect, and a grammatical error, I think,
would be offensive to some of my customers.
3.2: Representing the company in court
This theme might be less obvious to teachers and students, for litigation is not
yet a frequent concern in most classrooms. For several subjects, the errors indicated the writer would not be an
asset as a representative of the Readers in business not only draw on their own
company in legal disputes. This individual ways of interpreting a text, but also make
concern was brought up only by guesses as to how other people inside and outside the
subjects in professions frequently organization might be bothered by errors.
involving contracts or litigation—
real estate, insurance, health care, and (to a lesser extent) banking. Frequency,
though, can belie the importance of some issues. These subjects were usually
emphatic in discussing this problem. Jean commented:
And how is the company going to be represented when this is presented as evidence to a legal forum? Because the worst thing that can happen is for the opposing attorney to turn around and say that this person cannot write, cannot spell,
has atrocious grammar. How can they have the education and knowledge to supervise that person?
Even Charles, whose survey results suggested he was among the least agitated
by errors, was emphatic about how the writer might represent the company in
court.
You go into court, okay? Whatever your writing is, they blow it up [onto a screen]
the size of a wall! [He waves his arms.] The opposing attorney goes through whatever you have up there word by word. And if it doesn’t look good to a jury or to
anybody else, and if you have anything up there that’s not right. . . . they’re going
to use that against you. Opposing attorneys try everything in the world to make
you look bad!
When making comments about the writer as a representative, subjects were
primarily concerned about how other people might react to errors; on a few
occasions, subjects would state, in fact, that they might not make certain judgments, but they knew other people would. This guesswork might partly account for the diverse reactions subjects often had to the same errors. Readers
in business not only draw on their own individual ways of interpreting a text,
but also make guesses as to how other people inside and outside the organization might be bothered by errors. As seen throughout this study, a reader re-
57
CCC 53:1 / SEPTEMBER 2001
acts to errors not merely by comparing the text to linguistic rules or conventions—a relatively simple act that only seems to constitute the process of responding to errors. A reader reacts as well by considering extra-textual issues,
such as making assumptions about how, in a courtroom, other people (such as
lawyers) might exploit errors while portraying the company to yet another set
of people (such as a judge and jury). Such extra-textual entanglements are
rarely as rich in students’ academic writing, a condition that might partly account for the traditional focus in the classroom on only the textual aspects of
error.
Implications for teaching
This study drew on a small population to describe the interpretative processes
of business people and how they arrive at error gravity—not to create a hierarchy of error gravity or to quantify reactions. Looking beyond mean averages,
we see subjects offering a surprising range
We should not imply that errors that seem of evaluations, often by considering each
minor to some people (e.g., to the writer or the error individually rather than generically.
teacher) are not worth much attention. Because of this range, I suggest teachers
send a prudent message about error gravity. On average, some types of errors might appear egregious and serious, with
others seeming minor. The key word, however, is “average”—an abstraction
that emphasizes commonalty and minimizes disparateness. It is equally important for students to appreciate that some readers can deviate greatly from
the norm, and we should not imply that errors that seem minor to some people
(e.g., to the writer or the teacher) are not worth much attention. Kantz and
Yates found that teachers across the college campus can also have notable disagreements about specific errors despite some larger patterns of agreement,
so students must realize that these tensions—general hierarchies of error disrupted by specific instances of disagreement—are not limited to just one communication context.
The interviews shed light on the negative effects of error and why we cannot assume the only serious errors are those hampering communication of
textual content. Although errors can impede meaning, a more complex and
equally important problem is how readers use errors to construct a negative
image of a writer or organization. Again, students must realize the variation
among readers’ responses. For some readers, simple accidents or certain errors have little impact, while other readers see the same errors and create a
damning portrait of the writer. Despite this variation with individual errors,
58
BEASON / ETHOS AND ERROR
this study has uncovered categories of problems that better define “negative
image” and what it means to be bothered by errors. Students—if not teachers—who perceive errors as unimportant might consider these themes in order to appreciate the impact of errors on nonacademic readers. By
understanding the myriad ways in which a writer’s ethos can be unnecessarily
endangered by errors, many students
should be better motivated to avoid mis- By understanding the myriad ways in which
takes that careful proofreading would pre- a writer’s ethos can be unnecessarily
vent. Indeed, Haswell found in one analysis endangered by errors, many students should
that the clear majority of his students’ er- be better motivated to avoid mistakes that
rors were essentially proofreading mistakes careful proofreading would prevent.
they could easily correct (601).
Some students perceive errors to be minor concerns and teachers who
think otherwise to be “picky” (i.e., inconsequential). In some ways, these students are right. As a composition teacher, I might be annoyed or momentarily
confused by errors, but if it were not for the vital fact that I could decide to
lower the student’s grade, the way in which I personally react to errors might
not really matter. In the nonacademic workforce, errors can affect people and
events in larger ways. Most subjects recounted occasions when errors had detrimental consequences—an indication to me that errors truly bothered them
and that their negative responses were authentic. I refer to more than loss of
revenue for a company. Errors in some contexts can even be health hazards.
Jean, a health-care administrator, described an incident in which a patient was
given twice the normal dosage of a complex medication because of written
instructions containing a misplaced modifier and garbled syntax. This situation is not typical, but one implication of this study is that students should
beware of basing language choices on the “typical” reaction of readers. Instead,
students should understand the diverse ways errors can affect a particular
reader in a given situation.
While it is tempting to end on that note, I cannot in good conscience do
so. At the risk of complicating the implications of this study, I have two final
caveats.
First, we should be uncomfortable with any “easy out” for paying stricter
attention to grammar and usage, for this mindset could lead teachers and students alike to obsess over one aspect of writing while giving less attention to
other significant concerns. Indeed, practically all subjects commented on the
importance of matters such as logic, organization, and conciseness—even
though my questions centered on mechanics. Lee summed up his attitude to-
59
CCC 53:1 / SEPTEMBER 2001
ward errors this way: “I would just go ahead and get to the point rather than
dwell on the errors.” This study focuses on defining the components of negative reactions to error, and most errors in the questionnaire did appear bothersome to a degree, even for Lee. Still, I do not wish to imply the subjects were
so intolerant that students should worry that one slip in language will lead
business people to make all of the judgments
Error avoidance, I submit, should have a covered in this study. A person’s ethos is espresence in the composition curriculum— tablished by a network of extra-textual and
but without overpowering it. textual features, error being but one. In a previous study, in fact, I found various categories
of positive images that are especially appropriate in business and created
through certain textual features of business communication (Beason). Whether
we believe it to be the optimum situation or not, errors have an impact on the
writer’s image and communicability. Error avoidance, I submit, should have a
presence in the composition curriculum—but without overpowering it.
Second, we should also be uncomfortable with stressing any aspect of
writing based on what might be inaccurate generalizations, which I believe
are too much with us already. Despite the work of Shaughnessy and others,
some teachers still make erroneous generalizations about students’ linguistic
aptitude based on dialect-based “errors” that in truth reflect valid grammatical systems, and I do not wish to support these or other unjustifiable judgments made within and outside our profession. Teachers should not ignore
one finding of this study: Errors are conducive to a business person’s making
judgments about the writer’s credibility and capabilities. Yet if we as teachers
stress error avoidance simply because of this fact, are we giving credence to
stereotypes? A few subjects themselves realized their generalizations about,
say, a writer’s thinking ability might be unfair. Susan, one of the harsher readers, said: “A lot of my stereotypes about people who make those kinds of errors
have proved unfounded.” Such subjects were honest enough to qualify their
judgments, yet they were still willing to offer more generalizations.
We should, then, help students understand the depth and significance of
this all-too-human response to errors. While discussing negative images created by errors, teachers should not sanctify the ways in which people make
hasty generalizations about writers’ unconventional language choices. In helping students avoid errors, we help them avoid being victims of such generalizations. But in offering this assistance, we should also teach this next generation
of professionals that errors in formal writing do not necessarily reflect a person’s
overall personality, demeanor, or competence.
60
BEASON / ETHOS AND ERROR
Appendix A: Sample questionnaire
(Fragments)
Definition: A fragment occurs when the writer punctuates a group of words so that it
appears to be a complete sentence, when in fact it cannot stand alone as a complete
sentence.
This report presents the results and recommendations of the task force.
Which was appointed to study the most efficient method of storing all
shipments of purchased materials. After evaluating four methods, the
task force recommends the Stacker method as the most feasible.
______
Two years ago, a similar study was done by members of the accounting
department. However, their study was negated. Because it was based on
outdated estimates of the costs involved.
______
We examined four storage methods most frequently used in our industry:
(1) Trax, (2) Stacker, (3) Wide-Aisle Racking, and (4) Floor Storage. These
methods were evaluated according to the following criteria. Space
requirements, initial investment costs, and yearly operating costs.
______
The attached table summarizes the data gathered about the four methods.
The company comptroller supplied us with estimates of prices. The
following section is a brief description of the pros and cons of each of the
four options. Based on the criteria listed above.
______
In the spaces provided, use this scale to indicate how bothersome you find each error.
KEY:
1
2
Not bothersome Somewhat
at all
bothersome
3
Definitely
bothersome
4
Extremely
bothersome
Appendix B: Errors embedded in questionnaires
Misspellings
1.
2.
3.
4.
recomendations
they’re (for their)
metods
aboutt
Fragments (see Appendix A also)
1. Which was appointed to study the most efficient method of storing all shipments
of purchased materials.
2. Because it was based on outdated estimates of the costs involved.
3. Space requirements, initial investment costs, and yearly operating costs.
4. Based on the criteria listed above.
61
CCC 53:1 / SEPTEMBER 2001
Fused sentences
1. The task force evaluated four methods the task force recommends the Stacker
method as the most feasible.
2. Two years ago, a similar study was done by members of the accounting department however their study was negated because it was based on outdated estimates
of the costs involved.
3. We examined four storage methods they are the most frequently used in our industry: (1) Trax, (2) Stacker, (3) Wide-Aisle Racking, and (4) Floor Storage.
4. The attached table summarizes the data gathered about the four methods the company comptroller supplied us with estimates of prices.
Unnecessary quotation marks
1. After “evaluating” four methods, the task force recommends the Stacker method
as the most feasible.
2. However, “their” study was negated because it was based on outdated estimates of
the costs involved.
3. These methods were evaluated according to the following criteria: “space” requirements, initial investment costs, and yearly operating costs.
4. The following section is a brief description of the “pros and cons” of each of the
four options based on the criteria listed above.
Word-ending errors
1. Six years ago, the company had chose to adapt this method but then decided otherwise.
2. Two years ago, a similar study was suppose to have been done by members of the
accounting department.
3. These methods were evaluated according to the following criteria: space requirements, initial investment costs, and year operating costs.
4. In our analysis, we believe we have treated each option fair and concluded that the
Stacker method is the best.
Notes
1. These studies use the term “run-on sentence” to refer to two independent clauses
having neither punctuation nor a coordinating conjunction separating them. I use
the other common term used to refer to this error (“fused sentence”) because teachers and textbooks sometimes use “run-on sentence” to refer to other mechanical
or even stylistic problems.
2. Although subjects discussed textual features such as those identified here, I am
not suggesting there is no overlap between textual and extra-textual aspects of
discourse. Some subjects themselves indicated that textual features such as word
length are not necessarily a factor in error gravity for all readers or in all situations.
62
BEASON / ETHOS AND ERROR
Bradford Connatser found that readability formulas based on word length and other
textual features fail to predict how readers respond to a text. He concludes that
“text difficulty” is a perception of a given reader and cannot be objectively measured through counting textual features (280–81), demonstrating the essential link
between textual and extra-textual aspects of discourse. Still, subjects’ remarks in
this study indicate a distinction between textual and extra-textual features, and it
can be useful to forefront one or the other.
3. Category 2 also includes responses distinguishing between accidental and knowledge-based errors, though the subcategories are not as neatly identified with just
one or the other source of error. For some time, several researchers, especially in
second language acquisition (e.g., Corder), have used the term “mistake” to refer to
accidental slips of the tongue (or pen) and saved “error” for problems stemming
from insufficient knowledge of a linguistic system. I typically follow the convention in composition of using “error” to cover both categories. Bartholomae (263)
and others explain how these two categories reflect the Chomskyian notions of
competence (internalized rules of a language) versus performance (the actual—
often flawed—application of these rules).
4. Anecdotal evidence suggests this is the case. Two of my relatives in the computer industry have urged me to encourage students to proofread carefully if they
plan to enter this field, for if students cannot catch their writing errors they will
likely be unable to detect tiny yet costly mistakes in computer codes. In addition,
writing teachers well know their own errors can create significant image problems
for people in their profession, but these perils are especially keen for those of us
who write about error. During the submission process for this study, one reviewer
(who agreed this feedback might warrant a footnote) commented on my own errors in a way that might be considered harsh (“illiterate” was one term used), but
this was a far gentler image and more civil language than what I selected to describe myself and my mistakes. Perhaps the nature of people’s profession can affect not only error gravity and the images evoked of others, but the way in which
people view themselves upon finding their errors.
Works Cited
Bartholomae, David. “The Study of Error.”
Connatser, Bradford R. “Last Rites for
College Composition and Communication
Readability Formulas in Technical
31 (1980): 253–69.
Communication.” Journal of Technical
Writing and Communication 29 (1999):
Beason, Larry. “Strategies for Establishing
271–87.
an Effective Persona: An Analysis of
Appeals to Ethos in Business Speeches.” Connors, Robert. J., and Andrea A.
Journal of Business Communication 28
Lunsford. “Frequency of Formal Errors in
(1991): 326–46.
Current College Writing, or Ma and Pa
63
CCC 53:1 / SEPTEMBER 2001
Kettle Do Research.” College Composition
and Communication 39 (1988): 395–409.
Corder, S. P. “The Significance of Learners’
Errors.” International Review of Applied
Linguistics 5 (1967): 161–70.
Greenbaum, Sidney, and John Taylor. “The
Recognition of Usage Errors by Instructors of Freshman Composition.” College
Composition and Communication 32
(1981): 169–74.
Hairston, Maxine. “Not All Errors Are
Created Equal: Nonacademic Readers in
the Professions Respond to Lapses in
Usage.” College English 43 (1981): 794–
806.
Lees, Elaine, O. “Proofreading as Reading,
Errors as Embarrassments.” A
Sourcebook for Basic Writing Teachers.
Ed. Theresa Enos. New York: Random,
1987. 216–30.
Leonard, Donald. J., and Jeanette W.
Gilsdorf. “Language in Change:
Academics’ and Executives’ Perceptions
of Usage Errors.” Journal of Business
Communication 27 (1990): 137–58.
Long, Russell C. “Error Recognition:
Implications for Interdisciplinary
Writing Instruction.” 1982. ERIC ED 241
936.
Merriam, Sharan B. Case Study Research in
Education: A Qualitative Approach. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1991.
Halstead, Isabella. “Putting Error in Its
Place.” Journal of Basic Writing 1.1 (1975):
72–86.
Monthei, Carol. “Important Factors That
Influence Employers When Screening.”
Haswell, Richard H. “Minimal Marking.”
Thesis, Colorado State U, 1989. ERIC ED
College English 45 (1983): 600–04.
334 490.
Kantz, Margaret, and Robert Yates. “Whose Tomlinson, Barbara. “Talking About the
Judgments? A Survey of Faculty
Composing Process: The Limitations of
Responses to Common and Highly
Retrospective Accounts.” Written
Irritating Writing Errors.” Fifth Annual
Communication 1 (1984): 429–45.
Conference of the NCTE Assembly for
the Teaching of English Grammar.
Wall, Susan V., and Glynda A. Hull. “The
Normal, IL. 12 Aug. 1994 <http:
Semantics of Error: What Do Teachers
//www2.pct.edu/courses/evavra/ateg/
Know?” Writing and Response: Theory,
p5n13.htm>
Practice, and Research. Ed. Chris M.
Anson. Urbana: NCTE, 1989. 261–92.
Kvale, Steinar. Interviews: An Introduction to
Qualitative Research Interviewing.
Williams, Joseph M. “The Phenomenology
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996.
of Error.” College Composition and
Communication 32 (1981): 152–68.
Larry Beason
Larry Beason is Associate Professor of English at the University of South Alabama,
where he directs the first-year composition program and teaches courses in composition, professional writing, and teacher training. He has written several articles
and textbooks aimed at teachers and students in secondary schools and in college.
Currently, he is conducting research on program assessment and on rhetorical ramifications of linguistic theories of politeness.
64